Amazon Kindle A Flop?

Commander Suzdal said:
Yeah, that's it--we're stooopid! If you call a 30-year-old reflective LCD "E-Ink" that makes it super-techmo-logical!

Or perhaps you're a sucker for buzzwords and marketing--it's a hard judgment call either way...
Click to expand...

..you apparently ARE stupid, as e-ink is NOT lcd technology.
 
ssratt said:
E-Ink still has another 3-4 versions to go through until turning a page is done in an instant.
Click to expand...

The kindle is like .7 seconds. It's not perfect, but pretty damn quick by most standards. I was happy with it on video. Holding it in my hand might change that perception of speed, but I doubt it. It's much faster than the initial e-ink offerings anyway.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Tell you what, genius--I'll sell you some g-ink for $1000. It's two letters better than e-ink! It must be worth it!
Click to expand...

You continue to prove you have NO IDEA about the technology that this thread is about. Perhaps you should actually read up on e-ink and come back and apologize so you dont look so damn stupid.
 
Ethug said:
You continue to prove you have NO IDEA about the technology that this thread is about. Perhaps you should actually read up on e-ink and come back and apologize so you dont look so damn stupid.
Click to expand...

The point, my pragmatism-challenged friend, is that the technology behind the display is irrelevant. If it is a monochrome display on an off-gold reflective background, it looks more or less (as it does in the launch photos and videos) like an old-school LCD. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may as well be a duck. I don't care how the pixels are formed, or (for plain text) how many of them there are. They are still unimpressive by the only standard that matters--the image they present to the eye.

You can swoon at the "concept" and the "paradigm" and the "forward-looking" etc. etc. all you want, and it still is what it is. And what it is, is not worth $400 plus full retail book prices. And since you persist in being obnoxious about defending overhyped and overpriced "technology," this is your one free warning that name-calling and childish hostility are violations of the [H]ardForum Rules.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
The point, my pragmatism-challenged friend, is that the technology behind the display is irrelevant. If it is a monochrome display on an off-gold reflective background, it looks more or less (as it does in the launch photos and videos) like an old-school LCD. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may as well be a duck. I don't care how the pixels are formed, or (for plain text) how many of them there are. They are still unimpressive by the only standard that matters--the image they present to the eye.

You can swoon at the "concept" and the "paradigm" and the "forward-looking" etc. etc. all you want, and it still is what it is. And what it is, is not worth $400 plus full retail book prices. And since you persist in being obnoxious about defending overhyped and overpriced "technology," this is your one free warning that name-calling and childish hostility are violations of the [H]ardForum Rules.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you read up on e-ink realized how STUPID you were, and decided that instead of apologizing, you would ramble on like a self absorbed idiot. Nice going champ.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Yeah, that's it--we're stooopid! If you call a 30-year-old reflective LCD "E-Ink" that makes it super-techmo-logical!

Or perhaps you're a sucker for buzzwords and marketing--it's a hard judgment call either way...
Click to expand...

oh, and report yourself, jerk off.
 
Ethug said:
So in other words, you read up on e-ink realized how STUPID you were, and decided that instead of apologizing, you would ramble on like a self absorbed idiot. Nice going champ.
Click to expand...

Until you actually express some substantive counter-argument to my basic point, it stands unchallenged and unchanged, regardless of your hysterical declarations to the contrary. I think any bystander that has actually bothered to read any of this sadly unproductive exchange can distinguish the difference for themselves.

Let me guess, you bought a Kindle, didn't you?
 
I wanted to sum this up for myself after reading everyone's thoughts.

E-books - great idea has been around in everyone's mind for ages.
Digital books - great for casual reading, novels and reference points.

but it will never replace regular books for reading completely. It's just hard
to learn everything without something tangible to index, page through, read random
pages.

Until someone can come up with an interface that can maybe show 3d graphs. Show video clips when you get to a certain page in the book that's going to enhance the learning experience. Than I think this is worthless. I might as well just buy a 400 laptop that can do the job better. They make them really small at that price and it would do the basic job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top